Academic literature on the topic 'Wh- question words'

This chapter analyzes the syntax of interrogative clauses in French and in some Northern Italian dialects (NIDs), including so-called “wh-in-situ” configurations. It shows that their intricate properties can be derived from standard computations (“wh-movement” and remnant movement of vP/IP to a Top/ground slot) to either the vP Left periphery (“LLP”) or the CP domain (“HLP”). If so, it becomes necessary to raise the question of why some languages make use of the LLP or the HLP, or indeed both, like French, as argued in sections 2–7. In significant cases the morphological properties of the various Wh-words and the surface forms of the sentences provide all the clues required by the language learner and the linguist. In French, movement of interrogative pronouns to the HLP is actually movement to a free relative layer. This is an automatic consequence of the fact that, as in Germanic, most French and Romance wh-items are morphologically both (free) relative and interrogative pronouns. This will explain the distribution of French Quoi (what)—only an interrogative pronoun—and similar items in a number of NIDs (Che in Bellunese and Illasi, Què in Borgomanerese and Monese). In the same vein, sections 9–11 show that the fact that French Que is both an interrogative and relative element, in addition to being a clitic qua interrogative, will account for its properties in conjunction with a “smuggling” analysis of Subject Clitic Inversion (SCLI). Sections 14–16 show that many NIDs make use of both the LLP and the HLP and that smuggling is involved in deriving the form and interpretation of interrogative clauses in Bellunese, Illasi, and Monese. In addition to renewed empirical arguments in favor of remnant movement and smuggling, sections 2–7 argue that embedded interrogative infinitives in (at least) French are vPs and only have a (sometimes truncated) LLP. In addition to the fruitfulness of the “smuggling” idea for Romance, the main theoretical result of this chapter is that the interrogative syntax of the languages and dialects studied here supports the idea that “relative constructions” or “interrogative constructions” are not primitives of the language faculty, since in significant cases the derivation of questions activates both the interrogative side of the LLP and the (free) relative side of the HLP.

Answer sentence selection has been widely adopted recently for benchmarking techniques in Question Answering. Previous proposals for the task are essentially general solutions taking the form of neural networks that measure semantic similarity. In contrast, the present paper describes a simple technique to take advantage of such general-purpose tools for dealing with questions and answer sentences without changing the base system. The technique involves replacing wh-words in input questions with a word denoting the prototype of all answers. These transformed questions are passed as input to an

During the last twenty years, the Russian adverb davno ‘long ago, for a long time’ was widely discussed in literature. It was recognized that the unique parameter of davno is its inability to be the theme of a sentence. Moreover, if davno functions in the context of aspectual forms relating to the past it can only be the rheme. In the context of the aspectual verbal forms relating to the past but preserving the connection with the moment of speech, davno can be either the rheme proper, or a component of the rheme. A classic example of an aspectual verb form referring to the past is the general